Recent litigation against the City of Shreveport related to a water billing error.(Photo: Lex Talamo)

The City of Shreveport has been denied in its attempt to remove the judge in the legal battle over a water billing error that cost the city an estimated $1 million in water customer revenue.

The city had asked that Judge Ramon Lafitte be removed as presiding judge in the civil lawsuit filed in November by Sand Beach Properties LLC. Sand Beach alleges that the city breached binding nondisclosure agreements in fixing the water billing error that Sand Beach representatives had brought to the city's attention. Sand Beach asserts that it should be paid "reasonable" compensation, perhaps as much as $200 million, for pointing out the error.

First Judicial District Court Judge Michael Pitman denied the city's request on Monday.

The city said in its formal motion seeking Lafitte's removal that the judge's prior experience as city attorney for Shreveport meant that he may not be able to be impartial in presiding over the Sand Beach case.

The city's motion, written by Shreveport attorney Julie Lafargue, who is representing the city, also noted Lafitte's connections to Michael Wainwright and Shreveport resident Scott Pernici, who helped bring the water billing error's origin to the attention of the city, as factors that "may unintentionally influence" his ability to make "an impartial decision." Wainwright is a former Shreveport resident now living in North Carolina.

"During his employment as City Attorney, Judge Lafitte worked closely with Michael Wainwright, who was the lobbyist for the City of Shreveport. Judge Lafitte also knows Mr. Pernici through his employment as City Attorney, as Pernici served on committees by the City, having been appointed to such by former Mayor Keith Hightower," Lafargue wrote.

Louisiana laws allow judges to be "recused," or excused from a case over which they preside, when a conflict of interest might exist, such as when a judge has been employed or consulted as an attorney related to the case, has a spouse or partner who is involved in a case, or may otherwise be "biased, prejudiced or interested in the cause or its outcome."

The original lawsuit stated that several city employees had violated terms of a nondisclosure agreement that contained "confidential information" about the error in a new tiered-rate water billing system. Under the new system, water users were to pay progressively more for higher volumes of water use. The city incorrectly billed heavier water users for less than the rate structure approved by the City Council required for nearly 18 months.

See related news coverage at the bottom of this article

A district court judge recently refused to remove the presiding judge over the water billing error.(Photo: Alexandria Burris)

On Nov. 23, Shreveport attorney Jerry Harper, who is currently representing Sand Beach Properties, filed a motion that the city's reasoning to recuse Lafitte didn't stand.

"Allegations that a judge 'knows' and 'has worked closely with' the principals of a Louisiana limited liability company more than a decade ago is plainly not a grounds for recusal under Louisiana law," Harper wrote in a filed memorandum.

The city responded with an official reply in December, stating the legal precedents cited by Harper related to rulings from 1988 and 1989 that "are now highly questionable."

In his ruling, Pitman found that the city had failed to present the legal grounds required for Lafitte's recusal and set a hearing for Jan.10 for another motion filed by the City of Shreveport.

The city also filed a motion that Sand Beach Properties has "no cause of action" for breach of contract— or the "multiple violations of the nondisclosure agreements," according to the original lawsuit— because Mayor Ollie Tyler, whose authority would be needed according to city charter and ordinances, did not sign the nondisclosure agreement.

The city also took issue with the claim that it was intentionally causing undue delays in the case's progression through court.

"As of Dec. 5, 2016, the date of this argument of this motion, 52 days, a period of less than two months, has passed since the filing of the original petition," Lafargue wrote in court documents. "An argument based upon delay is without merit."

As a result of the Monday ruling, deposition dates for Mayor Ollie Tyler, City Attorney William Bradford, Chief Accounting Officer Brian Crawford and Water and Sewerage Director Barbara Featherston will also be set in coming months.

A TIMELINE OF EVENTS: (Source: Caddo Parish court documents)

10/14 Petition for damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees filed by Sand Beach Properties (plaintiff) against City of Shreveport (defendant)

10/26 Notices of depositions sent by plaintiff

11/9 Supplemental and amended petition for damages and motion to compel attendance filed by plaintiff

11/23 Memorandum in opposition to the motion for recusal of judge filed by plaintiff

11/30 Motions and incorporated memorandum to consolidate actions with order to set hearing on Jan. 10 and compel depositions filed by plaintiff

12/2 Memorandum in Opposition to 11/9 motion to compel depositions and argument on motion to recuse filed by City of Shreveport